User talk:JohnDoefordson

January 2024

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original article contained central, material falsehoods about Carroll's claims which I explained in my edit note. If you disagree with my changes, cite your sources and specify how any edit I made was false. Saying "not constructive" is a meaningless subjective opinion. JohnDoefordson (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jacona (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are re-inserting verifiably false information into the article. USE SOURCES AND FACTS or stop messing with people editing for accuracy. JohnDoefordson (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Funcrunch (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Funcrunch (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump

Your recent editing history at E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You people are a disgrace. You are allowing people to put OBJECTIVELY, VERIFIABLY false information into articles of public concern. I diligently cited my sources and explained my edits with specificity. You people use deliberately vague weasel words like "non-constructive" or "edit war". It is "non-constructive" to insert material falsehoods into articles and obstruct their correction by someone who took the time to precisely cite and correct false information. JohnDoefordson (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also blocked your account Zrz88PiRP740Qx7.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's cute that none of you have responded with a single substantive point yet. You're knowingly putting verifiably false information back into articles and obstructing correction of objective, factual points--and you don't even have the confidence to try debating the issue based on substance. JohnDoefordson (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture this. A meeting is taking place in a crowded auditorium. Proceedings are moving along , a quiet but steady conversation. Suddenly the door bursts open and someone rushes in, wildly screaming about injustice while swinging some sort of object in their hand.
How do you expect the crowd to react? What do you expect law enforcement will do? Do you expect anyone will be concerned with what you or saying or just be disturbed by how you are behaving?
Learn how to behave as a civil adult and you will be heard. Behave like a terrorist and you will be removed from the premises. — Jacona (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JohnDoefordson, around here, we have behavioral guidelines, and they are strictly enforced: Be civil, no personal attacks, and always assume good faith. You immediately violated all three, and edit warred on top of it. Bulls in China closets get executed. You may have some good points, but they never got heard because of your abominable behavior.

We use article talk pages for calm and civil discussion while we seek to reach a consensus on how to add, delete, or alter content. There is no rush, and we take time to do this. Anyone who tries to force their will on the community and treats Wikipedia like a battle ground will get blocked to prevent them from doing more damage and creating more heat than light. Now read and understand those sources I have linked. You cannot expect to be heard here until you understand and abide by them. - Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]